1. The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed a lower court's decision awarding the proceeds of a deceased father's life insurance policy to the minor child's mother, rather than the child's uncle.
2. The lower court relied on articles of the Civil Code that state the mother has legal administration over the property of a minor child in her custody and that property acquired by a minor belongs to the minor in ownership and the mother in usufruct.
3. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision based on the clear language of the Civil Code and the principle that the welfare of the minor child is paramount, and the mother is likely to provide greater care and attention to the child than the uncle.
1. The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed a lower court's decision awarding the proceeds of a deceased father's life insurance policy to the minor child's mother, rather than the child's uncle.
2. The lower court relied on articles of the Civil Code that state the mother has legal administration over the property of a minor child in her custody and that property acquired by a minor belongs to the minor in ownership and the mother in usufruct.
3. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision based on the clear language of the Civil Code and the principle that the welfare of the minor child is paramount, and the mother is likely to provide greater care and attention to the child than the uncle.
1. The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed a lower court's decision awarding the proceeds of a deceased father's life insurance policy to the minor child's mother, rather than the child's uncle.
2. The lower court relied on articles of the Civil Code that state the mother has legal administration over the property of a minor child in her custody and that property acquired by a minor belongs to the minor in ownership and the mother in usufruct.
3. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision based on the clear language of the Civil Code and the principle that the welfare of the minor child is paramount, and the mother is likely to provide greater care and attention to the child than the uncle.
SUPREME COURT judiciary pursuant to its role as an agency of the Manila State as parens patriae, with an even greater stress on family unity under the present SECOND DIVISION Constitution, did weigh in the balance the opposing claims and did come to the conclusion that the welfare of the child called for the mother to be entrusted with such responsibility. G.R. No. L-25843 July 25, 1974 We have to affirm.
MELCHORA CABANAS, plaintiff-appellee, The appealed decision made clear: "There is no
vs. controversy as to the facts. " 1 The insured, FRANCISCO PILAPIL, defendant-appellant. Florentino Pilapil had a child, Millian Pilapil, with a married woman, the plaintiff, Melchora Seno, Mendoza & Associates for plaintiff- Cabanas. She was ten years old at the time the appellee. complaint was filed on October 10, 1964. The defendant, Francisco Pilapil, is the brother of Emilio Benitez, Jr. for defendant-appellant. the deceased. The deceased insured himself and instituted as beneficiary, his child, with his brother to act as trustee during her minority. Upon his death, the proceeds were paid to him. FERNANDO, J.:p Hence this complaint by the mother, with whom the child is living, seeking the delivery of such The disputants in this appeal from a question of sum. She filed the bond required by the Civil law from a lower court decision are the mother Code. Defendant would justify his claim to the and the uncle of a minor beneficiary of the retention of the amount in question by invoking proceeds of an insurance policy issued on the the terms of the insurance policy. 2 life of her deceased father. The dispute centers as to who of them should be entitled to act as After trial duly had, the lower court in a decision trustee thereof. The lower court applying the of May 10, 1965, rendered judgment ordering appropriate Civil Code provisions decided in the defendant to deliver the proceeds of the favor of the mother, the plaintiff in this case. policy in question to plaintiff. Its main reliance Defendant uncle appealed. As noted, the lower was on Articles 320 and 321 of the Civil Code. court acted the way it did following the specific The former provides: "The father, or in his mandate of the law. In addition, it must have absence the mother, is the legal administrator taken into account the principle that in cases of of the property pertaining to the child under this nature the welfare of the child is the parental authority. If the property is worth more paramount consideration. It is not an than two thousand pesos, the father or mother unreasonable assumption that between a shall give a bond subject to the approval of the mother and an uncle, the former is likely to Court of First Instance." 3 The latter states: "The lavish more care on and pay greater attention to property which the unemancipated child has her. This is all the more likely considering that acquired or may acquire with his work or the child is with the mother. There are no industry, or by any lucrative title, belongs to the circumstances then that did militate against child in ownership, and in usufruct to the father what conforms to the natural order of things, or mother under whom he is under parental even if the language of the law were not as authority and whose company he lives; ... 4 Conformity to such explicit codal norm is supplied by the bond required. With the added apparent in this portion of the appealed circumstance that the child stays with the decision: "The insurance proceeds belong to the mother, not the uncle, without any evidence of beneficiary. The beneficiary is a minor under the lack of maternal care, the decision arrived at custody and parental authority of the plaintiff, can stand the test of the strictest scrutiny. It is her mother. The said minor lives with plaintiff or further fortified by the assumption, both logical lives in the company of the plaintiff. The said and natural, that infidelity to the trust imposed minor acquired this property by lucrative title. by the deceased is much less in the case of a Said property, therefore, belongs to the minor mother than in the case of an uncle. Manresa, child in ownership, and in usufruct to the commenting on Article 159 of the Civil Code of plaintiff, her mother. Since under our law the Spain, the source of Article 320 of the Civil usufructuary is entitled to possession, the Code, was of that view: Thus "El derecho y la plaintiff is entitled to possession of the obligacion de administrar el Patrimonio de los insurance proceeds. The trust, insofar as it is in hijos es una consecuencia natural y lgica de la conflict with the above quoted provision of law, patria potestad y de la presuncin de que nadie is pro tanto null and void. In order, however, to cuidar de los bienes de acqullos con mas protect the rights of the minor, Millian Pilapil, cario y solicitude que los padres. En nuestro the plaintiff should file an additional bond in the Derecho antiguo puede decirse que se hallaba guardianship proceedings, Sp. Proc. No. 2418-R reconocida de una manera indirecta aquelia of this Court to raise her bond therein to the doctrina, y asi se desprende de la sentencia del total amount of P5,000.00." 5 Tribunal Supremeo de 30 de diciembre de 1864, que se refiere a la ley 24, tit. XIII de la Partida 5. It is very clear, therefore, considering the above, De la propia suerte aceptan en general dicho that unless the applicability of the two cited principio los Codigos extranjeros, con las Civil Code provisions can be disputed, the limitaciones y requisitos de que trataremos mis decision must stand. There is no ambiguity in adelante." 8 the language employed. The words are rather clear. Their meaning is unequivocal. Time and 2. The appealed decision is supported by time again, this Court has left no doubt that another cogent consideration. It is buttressed by where codal or statutory norms are cast in its adherence to the concept that the judiciary, categorical language, the task before it is not as an agency of the State acting one of interpretation but of application. 6So it as parens patriae, is called upon whenever a must be in this case. So it was in the appealed pending suit of litigation affects one who is a decision. minor to accord priority to his best interest. It may happen, as it did occur here, that family 1. It would take more than just two paragraphs relations may press their respective claims. It as found in the brief for the defendant- would be more in consonance not only with the appellant 7 to blunt the force of legal commands natural order of things but the tradition of the that speak so plainly and so unqualifiedly. Even country for a parent to be preferred. it could if it were a question of policy, the conclusion have been different if the conflict were between will remain unaltered. What is paramount, as father and mother. Such is not the case at all. It mentioned at the outset, is the welfare of the is a mother asserting priority. Certainly the child. It is in consonance with such primordial judiciary as the instrumentality of the State in end that Articles 320 and 321 have been its role of parens patriae, cannot remain worded. There is recognition in the law of the insensible to the validity of her plea. In a recent deep ties that bind parent and child. In the case, 9 there is this quotation from an opinion of event that there is less than full measure of the United States Supreme Court: "This concern for the offspring, the protection is prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of every State, whether that 1, 1968, 22 SCRA 917; Dequito power is lodged in a royal person or in the v. Lopez, L-27757, March 28, legislature, and has no affinity to those arbitrary 1968, 22 SCRA 1352; Padilla v. powers which are sometimes exerted by City of Pasay L-24039, June 29, irresponsible monarchs to the great detriment 1968, 23 SCRA 1349: Garcia v. of the people and the destruction of their Vasquez, L-26808, March 28, liberties." What is more, there is this 1969, 27 SCRA 505; La Peria constitutional provision vitalizing this concept. It Cigar and Cigarette Factory v. reads: "The State shall strengthen the family as Caparas, L-27948 and 28001-11, a basic social institution." 10 If, as the July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 1085; Constitution so wisely dictates, it is the family as Mobil Oil Phil., Inc. v. Diocares, a unit that has to be strengthened, it does not L-26371, Sept. 30, 1969, 29 admit of doubt that even if a stronger case were SCRA 656; Luzon Surety Co., Inc. presented for the uncle, still deference to a v. De Garcia, constitutional mandate would have led the L-25659, Oct. 31, 1969, 30 SCRA lower court to decide as it did. 111; Vda. de Macabenta v. Davao Stevedore Terminal Co., WHEREFORE, the decision of May 10, 1965 is L-27489, April 30, 1970, 32 affirmed. Costs against defendant-appellant. SCRA 553; Republic Flour Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Zaldivar (Chairman), Antonio, Fernandez and Customs, L-28463, May 31, Aquino, JJ., concur. 1971, 39 SCRA 269; Maritime Co. of the Phil. v. Reparations Barredo, J., took no part. Commission, L-29203, July 26, 1971, 40 SCRA 70; Allied Brokerage Corp. v. Commissioner of Customs, L- Footnotes 27641, Aug. 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 555.; Gonzaga v. Court of 1 Decision, Record on Appeal, Appeals, L-27455, June 28, 24. 1973, 51 SCRA 381; Vallangca v. Ariola, L-29226, Sept. 28, 1973, 2 Cf. Ibid, 24-25. 53 SCRA 139; Jalandoni v. Endaya, L-23894, Jan. 24, 1974, 3 Article 320 of the Civil Code 55 SCRA 261; Pacis v. Pamaran, (1950). L-23996, March 15, 1974.
4 Article 321 of the Civil Code 7 Brief for the Defendant-
(1950). Appellant, 8-9.
5 Decision, Record on Appeal, 8 2 Manresa, Codigo Civil
27. Espaol, 38 (1944).
6 Cf. People vs. Mapa, L-22301, 9 Nery v. Lorenzo, L-23096, April
Aug. 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 1164; 27, 1972, 44 SCRA 431, 438- Pacific Oxygen & Acetylene Co. 439. v. Central Bank, L-21881, March 10 Article II, Section of the Constitution.
In the matter of guardianship of FERNANDO, FRANCISCA, RAFAEL and MARIA CANDELARIA, all surnamed BAUTISTA, minors. FELISA PANGILINAN VDA. DE BAUTISTA, guardian. UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, oppositor-appellee,.docx